Jump to content

User talk:Geraldo Perez/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12→Archive 15

List of Sam & Cat episodes

It has recently been released from semiprotection (as I'm sure you're now aware of, Geraldo, seeing you revert an IP there not too long ago). I noted the last four times it has been placed under semiprotection, going back to late 2015, it was due to the episode titles being altered to not include the hashtags (#), which are integral to all the episodes of that series. I also made note of the IPs who have been responsible for this, most of which geolocate to Chicago with their ISP being Comcast (one of them was from Champaign, Illinois on another ISP); for the IPv6 addresses, they came from either 2601:241:200/48 or 2601:241:201/48 (those geolocated to Chicago, again on Comcast). I will definitely be keeping an eye on any edit to the article by IPv6 addresses in those ranges, as they are most likely going to mess around with those episode titles again. Certainly should watch any Comcast IP geolocating to Chicago the way this has played out. Not sure what will happen if we are put in the position to request semiprotection again - I'd hate to suggest indefinite semi for this kind of thing, but it sure will need to be a lot longer than 3 months at a time.

Amaury, IJBall, Nyuszika7H: You all are also free to keep an eye on this one. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Of course. And on a semi-related note, the series shouldn't even have an episode list article as there's only one season. How it was created without issue is beyond me. I've been contemplating merging since last year and still am. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: There is a merge discussion on the talk page. Reason for not merging are there. Shouldn't have been split originally but wasn't caught then. Should reopen merge discussion if still interested in a merge. I'm still kind of meh about it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd still oppose merging, for the same reasons as before – a 35-episode episode list is too big to go back to the parent TV series article... As for indefinite semi-protection, for an article that's an episodes list for a no longer-airing TV series, I think it would be no great loss – that article should be pretty stable now, and IPs can still request changes at the Talk page should indef. protection happen... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The article in general is quite a mess. Per a comment on the talk page discussion, the episode list would only cause an imbalance issue because of the rest of the mess. Honestly, unless it's like 50+ episodes for a first season, the number of episodes shouldn't matter that much. K.C. Undercover's first season had 27 episodes, and I'm surprised no one tried splitting there for a one-season series at the time.
  • The lead is way too long. Most of the information there belongs in the "Plot" and "Production" sections. Some can even be removed.
  • The "Special guest stars" section is not notable and should be removed as none of those guest stars appeared in enough episodes to be considered recurring.
  • A characters list split would be appropriate.
  • "Controversy" section: I'm unsure if this should even be there at all as it really has nothing to do with the series and is more about the actresses and Nickelodeon, so it should be mentioned at the respective articles. However, the portion regarding Jennette's leaked photographs definitely should not be there. That has absolutely nothing to do with the series and belongs on Jennette McCurdy. That's equivalent to when those disruptive editors tried to add a "Controversy" section to Bella and the Bulldogs regarding Johnathan Butler that had absolutely nothing to do with the series, and it wasn't even true, anyway. Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs/Controversy.
That would cut down on size dramatically, so then adding the episodes table back would still keep it organized. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Feel free to clean up the parent article. But I'm still inclined to oppose a merge of the LoE there... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
One other thing – I'd oppose removing the 'Controversy' section entirely – it is directly relevant to the show's cancellation that the show's stars, 1) flaked out on their contracts, and 2) apparently didn't get along. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Selena Gomez

I'm not sure what to make of the massive edits made by one user Anon9088 at that article during the last week or two. In glancing over some parts of the article right now, especially the Personal life section, it's got content that appeared to be sourced before but has had references removed. Will also ping SNUGGUMS about this. When I saw how many edits Anon9088 was making last week, it prompted me to bring it up on the article's talk page. MPFitz1968 (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I responded on article talk page. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
The least that editor could have done was use edit summaries (especially for major changes). Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Descendants 2#Soundtrack album split

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Descendants 2#Soundtrack album split. For my records Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

the "Jimmy" edits

Not sure what compelled you to edit dozens of pages of people named James who go by "Jimmy," but you might want to stop for now. Not everyone named James goes by Jimmy, so it's actually helpful to have that info. where relevant. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bbny-wiki-editor: People will know a "James" is most commonly known as "Jimmy" as "Jimmy" is part of the WP:COMMONNAME shown in the article title and in the infobox. I thought my edit summary note was sufficient explanation of what I was doing and why. Nickname is a common diminutive so does not go in intro sentence per WP:QUOTENAME.
I was only bringing those articles into conformance to the Wikipedia Manual of Style for bio articles and what goes into the first mention of a person's name in an article is the full legal name, if known and referenced, and the only time informal names are quoted in that mention is when they are uncommon for that formal name. Manual of Style section I linked to has a pretty good explanation and some examples. The only articles I edited were ones where a person's common name as shown in the article title and infobox name attribute was a common diminutive for James which Jimmy is so I removed "Jimmy" when James was part of the formal name listed. I didn't change Jimmy to James in any article as I am well-aware we cannot presume a formal name for any given nickname if we don't have a reference.
I was just doing my part cleaning up articles to conform to the MOS and picked "Jimmy" as a target for a while - I stopped when it became tedious. I might continue or pick another common nickname when I get the urge to so some WP:WikiGnomeing. We really need a bot to do this as it would be fairly easy to automate and a lot of articles should be fixed. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Bbny, you might also want to assume good faith. Edit summaries like this are unacceptable no matter how minor they are. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: The edit summary message was somewhat harsh but he did ask for explanation on my talk page instead of dropping a templated disruptive editing warning on my page. Hopefully my "foolish" edits will be understood to have a good reason. The message is really directed towards the MOS, not me. There was some discussion about this at this RfC so the issue is a bit contentious. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the reply but I still see these sorts of mass edits as unwise and counterproductive, especially since it leads to inconsistency. The simple fact is, not everyone named James goes by "Jimmy" or even "Jim," and it's odd to have page names that mismatch the name that appears in the lead of an article. (What's to stop people from then changing the page name to match the name in the article lead?) Beyond that, by your own admission, it became tedious to make these edits, so all that resulted was more inconsistency across the site. One user doing 50 of these doesn't make much of a dent in what has become a widespread convention, despite whatever the MOS might say. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bbny-wiki-editor: About half the articles I checked already conformed to the MOS so there was already an inconsistency in usage. My edit history only shows the ones I changed. Of course not everyone with a formal name of James is most known by Jim or Jimmy or Jamey or whatever, some are most known as James. There already is a mismatch as the legal name doesn't match the common name, the nickname in quotes doesn't change that, but people are familiar with the common nicknames so this is not really an issue in understanding and does make the first mention in the intro sentence cleaner with only the legal name and nothing extraneous to that there. What will stop people changing the article name is WP:COMMONNAME which hasn't changed. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton won't be moved. Still there was an RfC about all this and the decision made there is reflected in the MOS. I am just doing my part to get articles into conformance. I am not the only person working on this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Random question

I'm working on something right now (basically it's an essay) so I have a random question here – to qualify as being listed as a "guest star" (e.g. for Disney or Nick shows), our cutoff is a "Starring"-level credit in the closing credits, correct? In other words, we don't list people with "Co-starring"-, or "Featuring"-level crediting, right? Pinging Amaury and MPFitz1968 on this as well... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Co-star is pretty minor so generally not mentioned. Featuring is somewhat less so from what I've seen, get the name in credits at least a speaking part. I'd say keep any episode cast list to guest-star and higher. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Featuring is a tricky one. Make It Pop & The Other Kingdom, for example, used featuring in place of starring in their credits. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
You can usually figure it out – if the main cast are listed in the end credits (and for most TV shows, they aren't), the (next) first set of listed actors are the "starring" guest actors (usually listed under "Starring", but I guess sometimes it's under "Featuring"). Then there's usually one or two sets listed after that – often it's "Co-starring", and then the last one is often "Featuring" though it's sometime listed under something else such as "Appearing". Basically the first set (the "starring" set) are your bona fide "guest stars"; the other two sets are less than that, and generally just appear in a scene or two (the "Featuring" or "Appearing" set are often just 1-line "walk on" roles...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Episode table - does listing of those "absent" come before or after listing of "guest stars"?

I'm curious, because I normally see "absent" cast shown after the "guest stars" per episode in LoE (or season) article tables. These edits in the Wizards of Waverly Place season articles - [1][2][3] - are making me question that. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Info about stars should be listed with the highest credited ones first. Main cast info should be first even if that is an absence in the episode. Doubt there is any standard for this but it should be consistent in an article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

BLP "source" question

So, what do you think, Geraldo? – Is this source as added in this edit a good enough source to include the middle name? (It does look to be from Nick directly, and it doesn't look like Kosarin is hiding it.)... Curious to hear your thoughts on this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:13, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: I saw the edit and I think the reference meets WP:BLPPRIVACY as she herself is saying what her middle name is. Official site for Nick so no copyvio being hosted. No doubt who is releasing the info. Cite needs some fluffing up. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Need a second opinion

Geraldo, so what's your take – is it worth it to take Ricardo Hurtado to deletion? Yes, or no?... My take is that it's pretty borderline (much more so that Breanna Yde or Jade Pettyjohn), and looks to me to a WP:NACTOR fail at least... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: It's marginal, I'd let it slide. Looks like enough to meet WP:BASIC if not WP:NACTOR yet. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
OK. It's interesting though – if this one is good enough, I may take another look at Draft:Cree Cicchino... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

David Hasselhoff

Geraldo, we've just had an unattributed split from David Hasselhoff to David Hasselhoff discography. You're better at handling these (i.e. you've dealt with these much more than I have), so I'll let you take this one. I'm not sure a full reversion needs to be done here – letting the "splitting" author know about WP:CWW and a WP:Dummy edit noting the split, along with {{Split from}} and {{Split to}} tags at the two talk pages, may be enough to "fix" this. But I'll let you use your judgement... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall and Tobyjamesaus: I don't think a split is justified for this article based on normal WP:SPLIT criteria, so undid it and added the proposal tags and discussion. Explanatory dummy edits in edit histories could have fixed the lack of attribution but I think it best to do a consensus based split in this case. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't really mind either way if it's split or not. To me, the David Hasselhoff article needs a lot of work; it's a pretty large as he's across many medium. Re Music, for someone who has that many releases justifies a split article. Over the past few days I have been able to research and discovered a lot of albums/ singles were missing from his discography - so I have filled that in now already. Tobyjamesaus (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

New articles

Most of you guys already know about this, but just making it official so the sandbox can be updated accordingly if there are any long-term interests here (and also if there are minor formatting issues I may have made without realizing it, like somehow missing a section for Cuff for Stuck in the Middle). I've also got some other articles listed there that I'm also planning a split on. The new articles created are:

MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H, IJBall Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Putting one on your radar

As one of the other people that's on the lookout for "date vandalism", I thought I'd put 75.71.213.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on your radar – not only have they engaging in date vandalism, but they've also been adding fradulent episodes to several articles (Gideon's Crossing, Life with Bonnie). Just so you know. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Want some help from me as well? Amaury (talk | contribs) 19:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: Nothing special – just keep an eye out. This IP is unlikely to target articles that you frequent... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Geraldo, also at 2601:281:C203:753:6CBA:F358:4609:D810 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and possibly 2602:306:C404:1CA0:9420:9C2E:9B0F:9DCA (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (not sure about the latter – locates to Texas, not Mt. Laurel, NJ) – this looks to be bigger than I can handle: it may take Admin intervention. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Falsifying dates is a too common form of vandalism and trying to block dynamic IPs for this is like playing Whac-A-Mole. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
But Whack-a-Mole is fun! Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:36, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I think I've been able to roll back most of the date vandalism from the 75.71.* IPv4 – it goes back to late last year. However, there was too much going on with Great Scott! (TV series) for me to easily tackle that one, so I've left it for now. But we need to keep an eye on the Mt. Laurel, NJ IP – it seems like it might even be a WP:LTA case, though I couldn't find anything at WP:LTA (this may be one of those cases that an individual editor or Admin is tracking – some editors seem to do this on their own...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Descendants 2

Looks like just another date vandal, because the schedule for tonight is just reruns:

  • 7:30 PM (Now) - Bizaardvark: Pretty-Con
  • 8:00 PM - Stuck in the Middle: Stuck with a Bad Influence
  • 8:30 PM - Andi Mack: Home Away from Home
  • 9:00 PM - Bizaardvark: Bizaardvark vs. Vicki "Hot Head" Fuego
  • 9:30 PM - Liv and Maddie: Hoops-a-Rooney

And so on. I'm pretty sure the movie premieres at 8:00 PM, so yeah. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Random question 2

OK, so why does Sierra McClain have a standalone article, while Lauryn McClain does not, when Lauryn McClain is the one who actually took over sister China's duties on Descendants: Wicked World (a development that actually generated real-world coverage!)?! IOW, of the two, Lauryn McClain makes a better "claim" for having a standalone Wikipedia article IMO. I think what I'm saying is, if either non-China McClain sister was to have an article, it's Lauryn not Sierra, though it quite possible/probable that neither is notable enough for their own articles yet... OK, rant over. Thoughts? (Also, pinging MPFitz1968 who I view as the most "musician-savvy" editor in our group...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Without more investigation, I think neither right now, another person who has coverage mostly because and about relationship to a notable person. Sometimes eeks by on WP:BASIC because of that coverage though. Redirect to band would have been sufficient in my opinion. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm likely to boldly convert Sierra McClain back to a redirect when I get a chance – there is nothing in the article now that points to independent notability of that one at this point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 Done, and followed up on Talk:Sierra McClain. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

New starring status cast members

So in Girl Meets World, for example, when Corey Fogelmanis was added to the main credit sequence in season two, he is listed before Danielle Fishel, but we list him at the end on the Girl Meets World articles because the articles cover the whole series, not just from season two onward. (He was upgraded to starring in season one, of course, but wasn't added to the main credit sequence until season two.) If Girl Meets World were big enough to have specific season articles like Boy Meets World does, then it would be appropriate to list him before her in seasons two and three. Anyway, does the same thing apply to animated television series? For example, in The Loud House, Collin Dean replaces Grant Palmer as the voice actor for Lincoln Loud in season one, episode 23 and onward—whether that's episode 23 production code-wise or airing date-wise, I'm not sure—due to Grant Palmer hitting puberty. (Why a person hitting puberty is a problem, I don't know.) Anyway, I've started a clean-up in my sandbox and that's what got me wondering about that. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Show apply to all series. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
So list Collin Dean at the end. Got it. Thanks, Geraldo! Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Quick question: What's the guideline, again, that mentions new starring cast should be added to the end? Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Template:Infobox television/doc starring parameter description. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I feel stupid now. I was just looking right at it, haha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: I think for "season" articles, you are supposed to list in order of the credits for the beginning of that season. I'd ask in WT:TV to double-check this, but that has always been my interpretation of how "season" articles are supposed to be done. In terms of animated TV series articles, for obvious reasons, their cast lists are almost always in the form of a 'Characters' list (i.e. "Lincoln Loud (voiced by Sean Ryan Fox in the pilot...)" rather than "Sean Ryan Fox as Lincoln Loud (pilot)...") to avoid a lot of these kinds of issues. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
In terms of the infobox, for animated TV series, I'd be tempted to just link to the 'Characters' section, rather than try to list them under "Voices of" in the case of The Loud House... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @IJBall: Right. I think that's what I meant, but I may have worded it wrong. For example, if Girl Meets World were big enough to have season articles, Corey Fogelmanis would be listed at the end for the season one article as he was not upgraded to starring until episode 14 ("Girl Meets 1961") going by production order. He also wasn't put into the opening credits sequence until season two and was listed as "also starring" at the beginning of each episode from episode 14 and onward after the opening credits sequence. He would be listed before Danielle Fishel in the seasons two and three articles per the opening credits sequence. Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, that's how I interpret that – for the "season 2" article of GMW, he would be listed before Fishel, as that's how he was credited for that season. But, back at the GMW article, he'd still be listed after her, as he is now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Jessie

Geraldo, do you have WP:AWB access? As I was saying at User talk:Andrewa#Jessie (TV series), the issue right now is a bunch of articles are linking to Jessie (TV series) when they should now be linked to Jessie (2011 TV series) instead. There are simply too many of those to handle without doing it through WP:AWB... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't have AWB access but I am working through the inbounds. First pass is fix the templates which cause most of the inbound because of transclusion. It takes a while for the inbound links to reflect the template changes though. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@IJBall: As far as I can see all the article and template space links to the show are now correct. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Yep, looks like it. It'd still leave Jessie (TV series) as a disambig. page for a little while. But if you don't change it into a redirect, somebody else surely will in a few days... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
@IJBall: I changed it while you were typing the above. WP:INCDAB makes the disambig page there unstable. Only reason I did it was to make fixing the links with Popups easier. I'd have no problems if you want to change it back for a bit. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Nah – if the links are fixed, a redirect to the base page should be fine now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sofia Carson

We've had some semi-long-term disruptive editing at this one – Is it time to look at requesting protection for it, or not yet?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:34, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Cameron Boyce is another target. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:49, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm... I would suggest sending the IP to WP:AIV, but results there are highly dependent on which Admin shows up – the wrong Admin could decline this as either a "content issue" or a "Edit warring issue... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Ed, Edd n Eddy

Heads up that our Ed, Edd n Eddy remover vandal is back: 2600:1012:B168:B209:2CD5:506:1FF6:212E IJBall, MPFitz1968 Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of The Thundermans episodes#New Section for Special Episodes

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of The Thundermans episodes#New Section for Special Episodes. Another nice and calm discussion. MPFitz1968, IJBall, Nyuszika7H Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

All Disney shows need to be part of one category

Please stop deleteing my edits.ZTPEditorandCreator (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@ZTPEditorandCreator: Please stop incorrectly categorizing articles. There is no reason to replace a sub category with its higher level supercategory. It is already there because the subcategory is in that category already. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

IP 64.234.32.187

Also pinging @Amaury, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H:

The next time IP 64.234.32.187 disruptively edits any of the article we're watching, please report them to WP:AIV. I've given them a final warning today, so any further disruptive edits should be blockable. Also, I believe the IP is likely guilty of edit warring at Jace Norman at least (and possibly at other articles...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: They're certainly sneaky in that their edits don't immediately jump out as obvious vandalism or disruption. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Gameshakers71

Per this discussion, I'm thinking it's time we report Gameshakers71 to AIV again. They are clearly not getting it and you can only assume good faith for so long. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: "L Is for Love" from The Loud House

Hi, Geraldo. I previously asked IJBall this here, but he said he was the wrong editor to ask about this, and now that my Wikipedia "workload" has calmed down—I've done a lot over the last few days as I'm sure you've seen—I figured I'd ask you about this for your opinions like IJBall has done in the past about other articles. Is the episode "L Is for Love" worthy of having in its own article? The article creator seems to think so based on what's implied in it, but I'm not so sure. I feel this is something that could easily be covered in either the summary or as a prose in the parent article. Thoughts? Thanks in advance. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: I can't see how that article meets WP:GNG. No other episode in that series has episode articles. It is referenced but mostly from the episode itself as a primary source or referenced viewing info. I didn't see any reliable secondary sources cover this episode in any extensive manner that would indicate some independent notability over any of the other episodes. I would expect to see review of that episode at the very least in some major publication to show why or how this one is special. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. I think they think that because it has to do with LGBT, that's enough reason for it to have its own article. It's not, in my opinion. There are plenty of other series out there, such as the famous Degrassi, that cover topics like this, and their episodes don't have individual articles, so this one shouldn't, either. It would be different if there were coverage by news sites such as Deadline, but there's not. So now the question is how should this be tagged? Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: A redirect to the ep list entry would normally be how this was handled with an edit history explaining why. I expect that to be unstable. Might be worth it to take it to AfD directly and let people argue the point. AfD result will likely be a redirect unless consensus there is keep which may happen as lots of wiki editors believe the subject matter by itself gives notability outside our normal notability requirements. Without secondary sources covering this as being notable in some way it is just editor opinion currently. I think enough shows do this sort of theme that it is no longer worthy of note to the normal publications anymore so they just sort of go eh. Geraldo Perez (talk) 17:23, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 Done. Have a look at the article: "L" is for Love. But I think I may have made a mistake somewhere. Shouldn't there be a discussion page somewhere? Amaury (talk | contribs) 17:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Never mind, I chose the wrong option. Here is the discussion if you're interested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"L" is for Love. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Courtesy ping for IJBall. Also, MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H, if you guys have any opinions on the matter, you are more than welcome to participate. Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Raven's Home

Need some eyes there. Got a disruptive IP who is refusing to get it and going against guidelines by not going to the talk page. The fact that they waited awhile the previous times I reverted them before reinserting their challenged edits is also suspicious as most IPs usually either don't even come back at all or will revert you almost immediately. In addition, there's a reason why all of us have been challenging and reverting this as they're not the only IP that's inserted this, they're just the only IP that's being unnecessarily aggressive and exhibiting signs of either WP:BATTLEGROUND or WP:OWN. Maybe even both.

Pinging MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H, and IJBall. IJBall, I'm aware you're not fully available currently, but still wanting to make you aware. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to update, they've started a discussion now, of course only after being warned... Still doesn't change things much. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:15, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: I've been seeing their edits, and agree they are disruptive. Regarding the connection between Cory in the House and Raven's Home, there isn't any, even though both have spun off from That's So Raven (in wanting to explain this, however, I've had a hard time coming up with an analogy that'll work in trying to relay this to those adding CITH to the infobox). The infobox instructions for "preceded_by" aren't exactly understandable regarding what doesn't go there, other than saying that shows that come on right before in a network's television schedule or which previously occupied the timeslot don't. The first part of the instructions says: If Show A was a predecessor of Show B, insert the name of Show A and production years. There is no truly good example in the instructions as to what identifies a show as a "predecessor" and what doesn't, but I still can tell that CITH and Raven's Home are not directly related, so CITH can't be named as a predecessor. MPFitz1968 (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

IPv6 vandals

Hey, I noticed that you're reverting a vandal that I'm trying to deal with -- An IPv6 one who seems to primarily television articles and episode list articles. I was wondering if you have any idea who this vandal is? The closest I've gotten is that they're related to WP:KIDSTVDATES, or this mess. Regardless, I was wondering if perhaps it's time to escalate this, because going through these IPv6 addresses' contributions, they seem to have a presence on the majority of the articles categories I described above. Even on newly-created ones they appear, which unfortunately makes it impossible to revert articles back to a last-good kind of state because they seem to have years worth of edits across a slew of IPs, both IPv6 and v4 ones. I figure you've noticed the same pattern to them -- IPv6 hits the page, typically starting with 2602 or 2607, in conjunction with a load of other ones, oftentimes ones starting with 96, 97., etc, and when you go through the IP's contributions, you will find the exact same or similar IP's tag-teaming on other similar articles that have an extensive edit history when the subject really doesn't explain the constant attention from such IPs. The IP seems to employ registered names as well, an example would be this. Checking this account's activity, I check one of the articles they've edited, and I find even more here. Again, notice the pattern: IPv6 addresses like I described, but now also a lot of registered, user-page-less registered users with exactly the same edits on similar articles.

Basically I'm asking for your perspective -- Have you noticed all of these things as well? I'm thinking about doing a write-up of all of these details, the crossover I've seen with other vandals like the WP:KIDSTVDATES thing I mentioned, but it seems extremely overwhelming; the sheer scale of the vandalism is massive and most of the IPs are not banned. Not that it would change much since they rotate them, though. So for the moment I'm at the stage where I'm trying to find out how many other people have noticed this pattern. Eik Corell (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eik Corell: KIDSTVDATES is likely the best explanation of this vandalism. It looks like some ISPs assign both an IPv4 address and a corresponding IPv6 address. Wiki software prefers the IPv6 if available but sometimes sees the IPv4, and may log edits to either one. Usually the first 4 chunks of the displayed IPv6 belong to an individual, the last 4 chunks sometimes change each time they connect to the net, so if identifying individuals ignore the second half of the IPv6. Some people connect using their mobile data connection and that is really hard to identify and block without a lot of collateral damage. Most of the edits are just vandalism. I usually catch this by having a few honey pot articles I watch and look for the patterns. The trouble is a lot of the edits are plausible and a lot of the IP ranges have good editors using them so this makes things difficult to block as well. Best we can do is watch for it. I can't think of much else we can do to squash it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Reconstructive editing on "Let It Go"

It's not your choice as to what belongs there. If I feel a parody is worth mentioning then it belongs there. It's not your call. It is well sourced. 2600:6C46:4A00:131A:1D76:D4AE:C6F7:2A62 (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Just because it passes WP:VERIFY does not automatically make it worth including. Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
It is out of scope for the article so does not belong. Thousands of youtube parodies of that song. Only notable if reported on by multiple independent reliable sources. Just because it exists, doesn't make it notable, even if it were in scope for the article section. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
E! News and other verifiable sources have reported on it. It is within the scope of the article. I have moved it to a new section. 2600:6C46:4A00:131A:1D76:D4AE:C6F7:2A62 (talk) 23:44, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Start a discussion on the article talk page about this. The fact that parodies exist may matter, highlighting a specific one is pointless. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok I will. 2600:6C46:4A00:131A:F9D4:D46A:66DC:3932 (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Peter Engel

Peter Engel could use more eyes on it. There's been a semi-long term problem with this one of people trying to add a birth date/year to the article, without providing specific sourcing. (See also the Talk page.) Separately, I was contact with another editor who had Engel's autobiography, and that editor was pretty clear that Engel never gives his exact date or year of birth in the memoir... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: 73.85.207.49

I'm thinking they're just a disruptive proxy as the summaries are familiar, particularly "the colors." And I don't know what the other summaries are suppose to mean. Notice how they also deliberately introduced factual errors here on List of Impractical Jokers episodes. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: I don't recognize the geo location and ISP as a proxy. The color changes, if they conform to our color contrast requirements, are just BOLD editing and OK unless they edit war about it if reverted. To build a case for blocking need to drop warning messages on the talk page. Deliberate misinformation is pretty bad, but have to assume made a mistake on the first one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
General consensus also seems to be that they should match something from the series, not just whatever, and most of the time, those IPs also end up breaking things in the process. For example, the table colors for Henry Danger and Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn come from the series' logos. Also, may or may not be related, but I found the same type of edits with similar edit summaries: List of Henry Danger episodes history. Scroll to January 4. Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: Which is a good reason to revert the changes given there was a reason for them in the first places. Sometimes people really don't care what the colors are in articles and some BOLD editor making the changes is just something that some editors like to do because they think them pretty or something. The major policy reason to revert is the color contrast accessibility rules we must follow. Other than that it is just one more consensus based editorial choice. Might be the same editor but the geo locations differ. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Studio T

I think the name change to Studio T is correct, but I don't think categories are supposed to be unilaterally moved, since that's what WP:CFD is for. I left a message on ZTPEditorandCreator's talk page—not that they respond well to such things, but at least I tried. Trivialist (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Descendants 2

Ok, this edit is about more than just lack of sourcing – somebody (I think it's only been IP's, but I could be wrong...) has been fraudulently adding "Rachel Ramos" to the cast lists of several Disney TV movie articles. (At least the TV movies – I don't know if it's included TV series articles too...) Because of this, we also need to be on the lookout for the creation of a "Rachel Ramos" article – if that happens, it will almost certainly be WP:G3-able... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Likely editor self insertion. I only found one use of name in a quick search and fixed usage. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Geraldo, unarchiving this one just to remind you – the reversion you just did at Descendants 2 directly relates to this old Talk page topic. So we seem to have a problem here... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:47, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Thought that looked familiar. Memory's fading as I get older. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I know that name looked familiar, too, though I couldn't pinpoint the articles I've seen it added to in the past. Am still trying to recall where the IP(s) have added it, but Adventures in Babysitting (2016 film) is their most recent target [4]. MPFitz1968 (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: Other stuff as well in that /64 range relating to dubious names in articles, not just that one bogus cast entry, I'm range watching that one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Bunk'd season two finale

I know we can use Zap2it when they have the season finale tags, but can The Futon Critic, which is also reliable source, be used to source a season end date? Under "Additional Notes" for Bunk'd, it currently has: [5] "completed airing its second season on 5/24/17; has yet to be renewed for a third season." It's something I just reverted not too long ago because the first part of that note seems like a pretty common thing they do even when there's been no official announcement by the network. Amaury (talk | contribs) 20:03, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: Futon is fine for that. As long as we can hang our hat on what a reliable secondary source supports we can cite it and use it for the info. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Breanna Yde

Please Add the last name of Ronnie Anne in the loud house and also add the last name of Babe Kenzie and Hudson of Game Shakers not just leaving them like no one knows who their last names is and also Dan Schneider is the creator of Game Shakers and he also come up Babe Kenzie and Hudson's last name. Jhan Alino (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

and please add some of Babe,Kenzie and Hudson's last name and Ronnie Anne's last name too! Jhan Alino (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jhan Alino: Character names are what the credits say they are. Last names are usually just trivial information and generally add little to an article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Peyton Elizabeth Lee

I don't care that this one went through WP:AfC – I don't think much has changed since the original AfD discussion in March which led to the article's deletion. She simply does not pass WP:NACTOR currently IMO (frankly, Draft:Madelaine Petsch makes a better claim to notability than this subject does), and the sourcing used in the article is mostly weak. Thoughts?... (And also pinging MPFitz1968 who was the original AfD nominator...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Doesn't meet NACTOR but looks like it slips through on WP:GNG. AfC people let it through as well so it passes their filter. I'd leave it be. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Taking that under advisement, but I'm still considering taking it to WP:AfD again... I just don't think it cuts it, esp. if a lot of the "fluff" (which is about Andi Mack, not about Lee) is taken out. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
When I originally nominated the article thru AfD in March, there were hardly any sources in the article and those that were there had no more than passing mention of Lee. A few more sources included in the latest version have been written since March, and I see one, at most two, may go a little further than a passing mention [6][7]. Still, I'm not too impressed with even those articles to establish general notability, since they are essentially written in the context of Andi Mack and not the actress herself. (Even that second one where she's talking about her heritage for Asian/Pacific Islander Heritage month was a video that I'm thinking aired exclusively on Disney Channel, which if true may cloud the requirement for the sources establishing notability to be independent.) But unlike my March nomination, I don't think I'd be as aggressive at putting it in AfD again, but I won't oppose it either. MPFitz1968 (talk) 22:49, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

General references

Based on Backstage, should we do the same for the following articles and remove that section?

Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: That was a specific attempt at a compromise for that particular article based on the talk page discussion. I suggest leaving it in the others particularly if the article is short on references and to head off having the article tagged for no references. Most important thing to me on character pages is verifiability of names used, mainly because of large amount of name vandalism and my desire to easily check names. Secondary characters are generally in the episode list as guest credits so that is usually not a problem and I can check in the ep summaries for those so verifiable that way and to get an idea which episode they first appeared in to check the credits if I want to. Starring actor names are in opening credit but their official credited name may not be so that should be sourced. I like to see any name enhancements beyond the credited names with a specific in-episode, timestamped, reveal. And of course WP:PRIMARY is pretty clear that anything at all that goes beyond straight extraction of facts from the source needs to be referenced to a secondary source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
I noticed checking recent edits that the general reference isn't liked either. Probably not really needed if there are specific references that source to show episodes. I didn't expect this to become an issue. Notability of stand-alone character articles is iffy at the best of times without some secondary sources talking about the characters. A robust references section tends to head off notability issues a bit but still... Geraldo Perez (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Gotcha. I've restored those articles to earlier versions before the other editor's edits. They absolutely need to be discussed. Now, when you say Probably not really needed if there are specific references that source to show episodes. do you mean a case like Backstage, where there are plenty of episode references to source the last names, for example? In a case like that, that section isn't really needed? Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Amaury: In my opinion as there are plenty of specific references. It is good to have when there is nothing else or few specific references. Most people seem to be aware that this type of article is mostly factual info extracted from primary sources, the episodes and official show sites. Of course that also makes WP:GNG hard to defend if someone wants to push it. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, and rather than make a new section for this, for K.C. Undercover's third season, I can confirm that, on top of the clips shown during the opening sequence being changed like they were for the second season, the theme itself was changed. If you're interested, here is the theme for the first two seasons—which I'm sure you've already seen, but just for comparison—and here is the theme for the third season. Of course that's trivia and isn't really necessary to mention as plenty of series change their opening sequence between seasons. It's nothing uncommon. Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Breadwinners (TV series)

Do we need to apply for semi-protection at WP:RfPP here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Yes and I did. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Raven's Home theme song

For reference: [8] Although that was released today, July 11. (Might be yesterday for you.) I think that's trivial information, though, that isn't really necessary to mention. All series have theme songs. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

And vs. &

I know that when it comes to writers, directors, what have you, those two can mean completely different things and we should most definitely put them in exactly how they are in the credits. "Written by John Smith & Alex Smith" means the episode was written as a duo/group. In other words, it was written by two separate people, but from the perspective of a single entity, if I recall from what you've said in a previous discussion. "Written by John Smith and Alex Smith" simply just means it was written by John Smith and also Alex Smith, but they didn't do it as a group. Is that right?

Now, when it comes to episode titles, it's not quite so strict and there's more flexibility—for example, on Liv and Maddie, when people kept wanting to make it "Something-A-Rooney" instead of the already correct "Something-a-Rooney," which you even raised on the talk page. From the view of episode titles, both "and" and "&" mean exactly the same thing, am I correct? For example, when it comes to capitalization, even if an episode title on The Futon Critic and Zap2it is something like "The Day Of My Life" or "It is Hot and Cold Outside" or "Vehicles are on Sale all the Time," we would ignore that and, per MOS:CAPS, make the titles "The Day of My Life," "It Is Hot and Cold Outside," and "Vehicles Are on Sale All the Time." I don't think there's a specific guideline for this instance, but I imagine it's the same thing with using "and" or "&." For example, all titles of Henry Danger that have "and" in them use "and" in its ampersand form "&" on The Futon Critic and Zap2it ([9] [10]). However, because I thought the ampersand looked weird for some of the episodes—see #23 and #24 for season one and #4 for season two on the episode list—I used "and" instead, which hasn't seemed to be a problem, so I imagine, like with capitalization, it's essentially fine. Amaury (talk | contribs) 21:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: An episode title is a proper noun, the specific name for some entity, and see MOS:& which basically says retain it and don't replace it. MOS:CT may require some capitalization changes though to fit our style. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Got it. It looks weird, but eh. I don't know why in those three cases, they didn't use "and." They're weird. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The Loud House: Overnight Success

Got another user who thinks an episode is worthy of its own article. Probably another one for AFD. God, haha! This would be like me thinking "Thunder in Paradise" from The Thundermans deserved its own article because of the events that took place. And this one's even worse than "L Is for Love." Amaury (talk | contribs) 23:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: See if the redirect sticks, basically same as a PROD. Maybe AfD if this becomes a problem. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
On the subject of "L Is for Love," you got any or interested in providing any feedback at the AFD? Could use more commentators: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"L" is for Love. If anyone else wants to join in, feel free. Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: I've been considering it. I haven't decided. Unfortunately this type of issue is bordering on the political and I find my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia declines precipitously whenever I get involved in any contentious issues of that sort. I avoid editing certain articles for that reason. Other editors are likely avoiding commenting for the same reason. I expect the result will be keep just because of the subject matter, independent of any normal notability requirements. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Gotcha. Look forward to your feedback should you decide to comment, but no worries! Also, or a redirect as the only one for keep right now seems to be the author. Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:09, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The Loud House: Left in the Dark

Just making you aware of this in case the creator resists. I've gone ahead and redirected it to the episode list. Sigh. I don't understand why people think these episodes warrant their own articles. Like, I can at least understand ones like "L Is for Love," even though I don't agree that they should have their own article, but your typical run-of-the-mill episodes? My God, haha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 18:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Mech-X4

Not quite sure what this is. Is it needed? Amaury (talk | contribs) 14:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

That belongs on wikidata. Interwiki links are added by clicking at bottom of languages section on sidebar. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Ratchet & Clank Future

FYI, it is not necessary to refer to video games and movies in the same series of media by their full titles. Just like Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction and Quest for Booty are in the same series, we don't put the full title of ToD in the QfB article, we also don't mention the full name of The Last Jedi in the article for Star Wars: The Force Awakens. There is a manual of style that mentions this, but I have no idea where it's located. Thank you for understanding. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jd02022092: Looks and looked confusing to me to see a title different than the official one when things are referred to. Readers are not expected to know the fan shortcuts of how things are referred to. It is a bit like acronyms. Maybe in sections where the full name is mentioned a shortcut can be used in running text. I see no benefit otherwise in shortening things. If there is a section of the MOS that addresses this I'd like a link. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: ZTPEditorandCreator

Seems like someone to keep an eye on as you've dealt with them before—up on the very first section above. You also recently reverted them last night. They hit The Loud House, a page I'm watching, but it looks like they're also hitting many others. Pinging IJBall, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H. Amaury (talk | contribs) 13:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WCVB98swell, it's a pattern. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
We may have another sock. See here. Pinging IJBall for some help with this battle as well. Amaury (talk | contribs) 07:22, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: Looks like someone else. This one just got a bug to include a bunch of stuff in ABC Family that don't belong. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

RE: Brendan O'Brien (voice actor)

The information regarding Brendan O'Brien voicing Aku Aku is incorrect. It is inspired by a false rumour that Brendan O'Brien voiced all the characters in the first game. This information is not true. Brendan O'Brien voiced the majority of the characters. But he never voiced Aku Aku, Ripper Roo, or Papu Papu. Brendan O'Brien did voice Papu Papu but only in Crash Bash. Archival recording of Dallas McKennon was used for the voice of Ripper Roo in the first two games, as well as the laughter for Crash Team Racing and Crash Bash. David Siller voiced Aku Aku and Papu Papu in the first game. Unless you can find some source that confirms that Brendan O'Brien really did voice Aku Aku, then I strongly advise leaving my revision where it stands, because I'm just going to keep undoing it until it is sourced. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 05:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@C.Syde65: I reverted back to one of your old revisions while undoing the edits of a disruptive IPv6 known for adding dubious info to articles. I though you'd be OK with one of your own revisions. I noticed that you just reverted what I did. Did you intend for all the other stuff to remain as well. I don't watch that article, and you seem to care, so you may wish to review the changes the IPv6 made. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure. All I know is that the revision I made was more correct than the revert, since the revert undid my removal of some potentially false information. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 21:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
@C.Syde65: If you are not sure about the edits IP user 2601:81:c401:5307:1ca0:84f7:39c6:eb79 made, I suggest you edit in your latest changes to your July 1 version and save that one. If you are sure the IP user edits are fine then leave it as it is now. That IP has made a lot of dubious edits so I don't trust the edits but I am unfamiliar enough with the topic to second guess a regular editor. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, sorry about that. I must have misread the edit you made and thought you'd undone my latest edit. So I've reverted it back to the other revision I made before the edits the IP user made. :) ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:10, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You reverted my edit

But there informations about Rex in Game Shakers and Cat and Sikowitz in Sam & Cat!

Aledownload (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Aledownload: What you added was trivia unrelated to Victorious. Schneider does a lot of stuff like that for his own amusement. We don't need to document every easter egg he drops in his shows that refer to his other shows. Other stuff like that in any articles about his other shows that don't directly relate to that show should probably be excised on sight. Geraldo Perez (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edits

On the Marvin Marvin wiki page, i noticed you reverted my edits about Victory Van Tuyl, so i just wanted to know why Kore50 (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kore50: The series stars Lucas Cruikshank as the title character Marvin Marvin. He is the lead character. Order of credits in the infobox should match order in the opening credits of the first episode with additions added at end. Victory Van Tuyl is not the lead character and does not get listed first as you rearranged it. The premise section of the article shows how the characters interact. Your additions to the lead were not necessary and gave too much weight to the non leading character. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Ratings question

Geraldo, lately I have been seeing a lot of edits like this at various TV series articles (FTR, I reverted this edit at Daytime Divas). What's your take on this?... TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:57, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Two decimal places for episode tables is the standard while one decimal place is the standard for, like, the list of DCOMS. I've never seen the raw three decimal places used. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:01, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, I can't remember which one, but—and it may have been the same IP—this problematic edit has popped before on one of the articles we all watch. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@IJBall: If the number is correct it is just an editor choice like table colors and such. I, and most people, think 3 digits of precision after the decimal are excessive for what we want to communicate. If someone wants to change what is long-established in an article they should go for consensus which they likely won't get. Also it is a change in the data which is a hassle to verify again and another source of transcription error in the ratings for no real gain. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I love the smell of disruptive IPs. /s They're just causing more trouble for themselves now. (IJBall) Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: If you'd like to keep an eye on this as well, that'd be great! Amaury (talk | contribs) 04:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

Geraldo, I'm hoping you'll take a look at this edit, and determine if it is accurate or not. TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: Looking at the article both the producer and distributor look unlikely. I can't see anything anywhere that shows Disney Channel as a production company in its own right, other companies produce their stuff normally, and they broadcast it. The normal distributer would be Disney Channel as the broadcast outlet. The others get involved for home media, digital streaming, and syndication which looks unsupported for this series. IMDb generally gets this right and I can't find support for that there either. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks – I've gone ahead and reverted that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Sesame man

Looks to be a date vandal. Just so you know. May need to be blocked. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Question...

Considering WP:NOTTVGUIDE, what was the deciding factor that governed your decision here? Atsme📞📧 18:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: See Talk:Miles from Tomorrowland#Episode list split. Conditions for split were met as there is more than one season now. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I understand that we split articles when the content becomes overwhelming, but what I'm not quite grasping is why we're including a listing of episodes considering policy dictates. Is there a difference between WP:NOTTVGUIDE and what that split represents? Atsme📞📧 19:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Atsme: A list of episodes is not considered a TV Guide. It is an extension of the plot descriptions most works of fiction have, has ratings information, and additional information about the episode that a basic program guide does not have. Plot descriptions are a summary of what is in the episode, not teasers, and generally don't list every time and on what channel any of the episodes air, just the initial airing info. I didn't create that content, I just moved it from the existing article as the root article was getting to large per WP:SPLIT requirements. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Ohhhh...💡!! Thank you for the explanation. I knew that you didn't create the content but felt pretty confident that you knew the differences between NOTLIST and the content and could explain it to me, which you did beautifully! Thank you again. Atsme📞📧 20:15, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Re: 2600:1012:B053:6EA9:4991:4D5A:848D:5C1

Just a heads up, this person's back again. I don't understand why they hate Ed, Edd n Eddy so much nor do I understand when the whole problem started, LOL! (Pinging IJBall, MPFitz1968, and Nyuszika7H as well.) I wonder if it's time to request a range block. Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

And now 2600:1012:B12D:33C7:58E7:4E76:8E9E:1854. They can't even spell "rid" correctly, haha! Amaury (talk | contribs) 15:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: Dynamic IPv6 and a range too large to block. Also edits on a couple of IPv4s. Watch when you revert you don't go back to another of his IPs. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:45, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
This vandal just attacked List of American television programs‎ – [11]. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Raven's Home

There's been a large number of attempts to add content about the premiere, or various credits about the show in the infobox, ahead of its airing on Disney Channel later tonight (about 6 hours away at the time of my post). IPs, newly registered and even autoconfirmed accounts adding this info based on the fact that the first episode is available right now on Watch Disney. I hesitate to ask for semiprotection here, since autoconfirmed is involved here, plus it's not too long before RH airs on DC, but right now I'm stretched to my limit on reverting the article (exemptions in 3RR don't apply in this case). MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: As far as I know the episode is released for streaming, not broadcast yet. Information added is plausibly correct. A {{cn}} would be all that is needed until then. I wouldn't bother and would just ignore the article for the next 6 hours. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Meh – not only are they adding stuff before it officially airs, but they're also adding it wrong. Unless they add the info correctly, I think we should just keep reverting (i.e. at least the clueless IP's and such...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop reverting, start talking on Frozen (2013 film)

You have to justify its inclusion. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@The Quixotic Potato: We have started talking and is in progress and ongoing. Until discussion complete - WP:STATUSQUO. You have to justify the major change you made to an existing article that I disagreed with. Onus on you to justify your modifications and gain consensus. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
No, you have made a bold edit, you have been reverted, now you need to discuss. You need to convince people that we need to include sentences like "He also said that what people could infer from the film had "blow[n] [him] away."?" and opinions of non-notable critics, because we usually do not per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:CONSENSUS. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@The Quixotic Potato: No, you have made the bold edit, I reverted that bold edit, now you need to discuss, which you did start. The only edit I made was to undo your bold edit and return the article to the state it originally was. Discussion on the edits belong in the article talk page, not here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Nope, I have undone the bold edit by removing stuff. The bold move was to add lots of nonnotable cruft. You can move this to the article talk page, and there you can respond to what I wrote there. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@The Quixotic Potato: The stuff you removed was in the article for a long time and was not something I added. Issue is under discussion, until discussion complete WP:STATUSQUO which is all I reestablished. Let other editors who watch the article respond. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
STATUSQUO is an essay. Many people do not agree with it. I can write an essay too, but that doesn't automatically turn my advice into a rule that you have to follow (as you are probably well aware). I want to hear your justification for the inclusion of this promotional sounding stuff. You have added a non-notable POV in an article, so it is only fair that you explain why you think that that was a good idea. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@The Quixotic Potato: It documents generally rules of interaction that most editors, who want to collaborate, follow. I did justify why I opposed removal in the talk page. Let others comment. I added nothing to the article that was not there previously. I restored it to the state it was in before you made your contested changes. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, now we get to the bottom of it, you misunderstand how essays work. I am not sure how many of them you've read, but we have essays that were written to contradict (and provide a counter-argument to) another essay. Essays are not laws. Essays are advice, anyone can write an essay, and some essays are better than others. Some essays have a large consensus behind them, others not so much. It was a bold move to add all kind of fancruft and promotional stuff, but we have consensus against that. If you want to include a non notable opinion in this article then you will have to get consensus for that. There is consensus against including nonnotable opinions. There is also consensus against including promotional text. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@The Quixotic Potato: I understand quite well how essays work and that particular one is generally well accepted as good editing practice to resolve conflicts. The info has been in the article for a few years, review by many and not considered out of bounds for the article. I am disputing your characterization of the content and the sources. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
That particular essay is frequently abused by people who do not want to follow WP:CONSENSUS. I recently edited an article that had been on Wikipedia for a very very long time. It was totally crap. Much worse than what you are imagining right now. The sources were crap, the claims were crap, and it was probably written by a paid editor with an undisclosed COI. It ended up being deleted, but it had been on Wikipedia for many years and no one had bothered to even begin to fix the problems. I could simply be one of those drive-by taggers who slap {{advert}}, {{fancruft}} and {{npov}} on the article, but I prefer to try to actually fix the problem and improve the article. Wikipedia should be neutral. We can say a movie was received very positively (like this one was), but we should not allow promotional content. I am quite curious in your justification for including the stuff that I removed. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@The Quixotic Potato: I would prefer to see what others say before I comment again in the article talk page. I'm not going to edit war this. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, I have to go to sleep anyway, so if you would want to edit war about this then you would be alone. The people who have watchlisted an article are often fans of the subject of that article, not neutral passers-by. They would need to get consensus to overrule the current consensus that non-notable povs and promotional stuff and fancruft is unacceptable. Sleep well (not sure what your timezone is)! (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

YA Question

Recently, someone made this edit using this source to Melanie Scrofano, and I'm wondering if this is a good enough source for a DOB. Based on this, I can't make heads or tails on whether they're a "webscraper" or not. So I'm tempted to tag with a {{better source needed}} tag, but I figure I'd see what you think first. TIA... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

@IJBall: I'd say no. If she had responded with the date including year and was directly quoted that would be one thing. The source itself is otherwise not a reliable source and their summary statement at the end could have easily been from someplace other than her. Might be enough to support a circa year but would be nice to have an age in a dated article for that. She is being coy about her age and WP:BLPPRIVACY says respect that if not well sourced. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Callmemirela 🍁 talk 16:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

List of The Loud House episodes

Pinging IJBall as well. I may need some extra eyes. See my recent two reverts. Per IJBall's comment on the talk page—see the "There Needs to be More Consistency" section—unless there is a source somewhere that lists everything individually by segment—and there likely isn't one—we go by what we have, and what we have is 217 as yesterday's segments aired together. 217A and 217B are non-existent. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Descendants 2

I'm sorry, but this is just too funny to not mention. I was in the process of reverting the edit when it conflicted with you. I wrote the exact same summary you did. Amaury (talk | contribs) 00:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

On more non-comical matters, I could use some eyes on the article. People keep trying to add the simulcasts category and refusing to discuss the issue. Unless I'm wrong this time, that is not defining to the movie. Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@Amaury: Looking at Category:Simulcasts this show does seem out of place. However there is significant article content that talks to this, including in the lead section, and Simulcasts § Other uses does talk to doing this to bump up ratings. Being in the lead does give weight to being defining for a category. I'd say there is sufficient support for that category in the article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree – in this case, I think that cat. probably applies. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks, Geraldo. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong or "wrong," but people really need to learn the importance of discussion. That way things can be resolved peacefully before it starts escalating. It's like the silly IP who "reported" me on DRN and not only failed to notify me, but also failed to include (and notify) you and the others involved in that discussion on the Raven's Home talk page. The consensus was against them, but apparently they "reported" me because I gave them "attitude." I didn't give them any attitude, I was just dismissive once it was clear that they were going to refuse to drop the stick. I find their statement to be bogus, though, because they tried to claim that there was no proper discussion when, in fact, there was. As such, I still believe they're upset things didn't go their way despite their claims. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

User 2601:741:8000:9596:/64

This user has been adding bogus characters into articles like Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn. When I looked at their edit here, I knew their style looked familiar (capitalizing all the words) and I had to find previous instances of their disruption. They previously edited under the IPv4 address 71.204.231.6 and had been doing so as recently as earlier this month - but their disruption goes back well over a year. The IPv4 and IPv6 both geolocate to Charleston, SC, and right now the IPv6 whose edit I cited is currently blocked (for 31 hours from 18:44 July 26 UTC). So then I saw this edit, which is from an IP on the same /64, clearly block evasion. Philip J Fry reverted the edit, but is unaware the IP is evading a block right now. Any edit from IPs in 2601:741:8000:9596:/64 should immediately be identified as block evasion (as long as one in their range is blocked) and sent to AIV, and if they persist, a range block is certainly possible. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: I requested a block on latest and a range block on the /64 range. I have seen this disruption before. Looks that doing it on purpose knowing it is wrong just for the chuckles he gets doing it. Range Edits To Date. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The Dude Perfect Show / List of The Dude Perfect Show episodes

This is one I just recently cleaned up and added to my sandbox as well as split. I've already had a couple of fairly small problems on the episode list, but the articles could just use more watchers in general. IJBall was already watching the parent article, but if you and the others are interested in them long-term... MPFitz1968, Nyuszika7H. As I always say, the more the merrier! Amaury (talk | contribs) 16:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not "watching" it – I just looked at it, and did some cleanup work. I'll probably take a look at it from time to time for a while. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Kostas20142 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Default sort

So I don't totally understand how this works.

I particularly see it on episode and character list articles, but I've also seen people insistent on adding it to parent articles like The Dude Perfect Show. However, I've also seen it on articles like Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn. According to Template:DEFAULTSORT, It is not necessary to use DEFAULTSORT at all if the article or page should be alphabetized according to its title (true for most articles). So based on that, it's not necessary to use it, but yet people are always insistent on using it. At a guess, in cases like The Dude Perfect Show, it's likely because of the "the" and because it's such a common word, we ignore it and go straight to the next word for alphabetization. I don't understand why we use it on episode/character list or articles like Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn, though. Amaury (talk | contribs) 22:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amaury: I can't think of any functional use other than changing how sorted from normal. If it is the same as the show name, then it is really doing nothing and is harmless to have in the article. If is wrong, it needs to be corrected. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
From what I can gather, Template:DEFAULTSORT is useful/necessary at an article like The Dude Perfect Show, and at any other article that starts with an article like "The" or "A", but should be completely unnecessary at an article like Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:11, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@IJBall: Thanks. Is the reason for using it on episode and character lists kind of the same? For example, {{DEFAULTSORT:Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episodes, Lists of}}. Or is it unnecessary there as well? Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Regarding LoE or LoC articles, seeing how they get sorted in categories related to those (e.g., Category:Lists of American children's television series episodes), DEFAULTSORT should be used, sorted on the title of the show, to properly put the articles under the correct letter (like, List of Girl Meets World episodes under the letter "G" ... without it this would most likely be put under the letter "L", as would all relevant articles in such a category). MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
@MPFitz1968: Makes sense! Now I understand it more. So with TV series, only parent articles don't need the default sort, unless they begin with an article. I myself don't ignore the articles as seen in my sandbox, but if that's how Wikipedia does it, then no sweat! Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:30, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) OK, after a closer inspection, checking what was in List of Hannah Montana episodes, the DEFAULTSORT string there is "List of Hannah Montana Episodes", yet it still shows up in my example category under the letter "H". A little puzzling to me, so what I just said may not be necessarily true. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Geraldo_Perez/Archive_10&oldid=1140223478"